McCarthy v. McCarthy, 57 A.D.3d 1481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
McCarthy v. McCarthy, 57 A.D.3d 1481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: STUART, ROLAND E. v. STUART, PEGGY L. (nyappdiv, 2016-03-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STUART, ROLAND E. v. STUART, PEGGY L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Having considered all of the relevant factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), including the limited income and earning potential of plaintiff, we modify the judgment by reducing the maintenance award to $850 per month, which more accurately “ ‘reflects an appropriate balancing of *1641 [defendant’s] needs and [plaintiff’s] ability to pay’ ” (McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2008]; see generally Cameron v Cameron, 238 AD2d 925, 925 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SALVATO, KAREN L. v. SALVATO, LARRY P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance to plaintiff of $1,000 a month for a period of four years (see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]). “[T]he amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" D'AMATO, JO ANN v. D'AMATO, JOSEPH
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Gately v Gately, 113 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2014], lv dismissed 23 NY3d 1048 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]), and we perceive no abuse of discretion here.
discussed Cited "see" Dougherty v. Dougherty
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
The Supreme Court providently awarded maintenance to the plaintiff for a period of seven years, and the amount of the award was not excessive. “ ‘[A]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Myers v Myers, 118 AD3d 1315 , 1316 [2014], quoting Frost v Frost, 49 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 [2008]; see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Sawin v. Sawin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“It is well established that, ‘[a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Myers v Myers, 118 AD3d 1315 , 1315 [2014], quoting Frost v Frost, 49 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 [2008]; see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" LAZAR, MELISSA v. LAZAR, BARRY D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“It is well established that, [a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Myers v Myers, 118 AD3d 1315, 1315 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 ).
discussed Cited "see" Lazar v. Lazar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“It is well established that, [a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Myers v Myers, 118 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Lazar v. Lazar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“It is well established that, [a]s a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Myers v Myers, 118 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see McCarthy v McCarthy, 57 AD3d 1481, 1481-1482 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Della M. McCarthy
v.
Stephen D. McCarthy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 31, 2008.
57 A.D.3d 1481
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of divorce that, inter alia, awarded plaintiff durational maintenance and a share of defendant’s 401(k) retirement account pursuant to Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481 [1984]). “As a general rule, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (Boughton v [*1482] Boughton, 239 AD2d 935, 935 [1997]) and, contrary to defendant’s contention, we perceive no abuse of discretion with respect to the award of maintenance. The record establishes that Supreme Court properly considered the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in fashioning a maintenance award that “reflects an appropriate balancing of plaintiffs needs and defendant’s ability to pay” (Torgersen v Torgersen, 188 AD2d 1023, 1024 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 709 [1993]). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff a share of defendant’s 401(k) retirement account in accordance with the Majauskas formula in light of, inter alia, the extensive commingling of assets and liabilities during the marriage and defendant’s wasteful dissipation of both marital property and plaintiffs separate property (see generally Berge v Berge, 159 AD2d 960 [1990]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.E, Martoche, Fahey and Gorski, JJ.